Introduction
The Baltic States and Poland announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty, an agreement that bans the use of anti-personnel landmines. On Tuesday, April 15th, the countries jointly released a statement in which they declared that they “believe that in the current security environment it is paramount to provide our defence forces flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster the defence of the Alliance’s vulnerable Eastern Flank” (Ministry of National Defence Republic of Poland, 2025).
The decision to withdraw from the Treaty came amidst growing security concerns in recent years. The countries aim not only to reintroduce the usage of anti-personnel mines but also their production. Earlier this year, Finland also announced its withdrawal from the Treaty and last September, Lithuania withdrew from the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The Ottawa Treaty
The Ottawa Treaty, also known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On Their Destruction, was signed in 1997, and entered into force in 1999. The Treaty prohibits the use, production, development, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. It also requires the destruction of existing anti-personnel mines that the States possess. The Treaty was signed and ratified by more than 160 countries with the Baltic States joining it in 2005 and Poland in 2012. Countries that have not signed or ratified the document include the United States (US), Russia, China and India.
The Treaty distinguishes two types of landmines: anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines. Both types are extremely dangerous and continue to harm people long after the end of armed conflict. However, anti-personnel mines are created specifically to harm individuals: they are smaller, lighter, harder to detect, and easy to trigger. Anti-personnel mines are not equipped with anti-handling devices, which allows them to be triggered by the presence, proximity or contact with a person,making them extremely high-risk for civilians. Due to their indiscriminate effects, mines cannot distinguish between soldiers and civilians, and harm whoever triggers them first.
The Convention contributed to a drastic decrease in deployment and creation of anti-personnel mines. It also led to the creation of weapons that are safer for civilians and for the clearance of mined areas. The Treaty helped reduce the number of landmines by setting up a ten-year deadline for the destruction of all available stocks for each country. This contributed to a sharp reduction in the number of civilians killed or injured by landmines.
Since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, the number of people injured and killed by landmines has started to grow once more. Even though Ukraine is a signatory of the Ottawa Treaty, it has been receiving anti-personnel landmines as part of military aid from other countries. This decision to deviate from the Treaty was condoned by Ukrainian allies such as the United Kingdom and US. The general consensus is that, in extreme cases, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter — which mandates the international community to support countries against unwarranted aggression — should prevail over other treaties and commitments (United Nations, 1945).This created a precedent that led other world leaders to consider the use of banned military equipment.
The significance of the Treaty for upholding human rights and international humanitarian law has been emphasised many times. The withdrawal has raised concerns over the power of international law and international institutions in general. However, as we carefully assess the decisions to reinstate the creation and use of landmines, it is important to look at the wider picture. In recent years, the international security landscape has changed rapidly and dramatically; new military conflicts arise as old allies decide to withdraw from their obligations.
Security Concerns and Motivations for Withdrawal
The main reason for exiting the Treaty for the Baltic States and Poland is the growing concern for the countries’ national security. Sharing a border with Russia, a country that is currently at war with one of its other neighbours, Ukraine, makes the countries anxious about being next in line. From the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Baltic States were among the most vocal European countries that urged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) to focus more attention on the borders that Europe shares with Russia.
This decision is also being made amid general discussions about the need to rearm Europe, as the new US administration aims to reduce its role in NATO. Europe faces difficulties in both production of military equipment as well as in the recruitment of trained military personnel. To address this gap, Europe will need to focus closely on its military security. In particular, the countries that share a border with Russia and Belarus are starting to pay close attention to their rearmament strategies. In light of these challenges, the EU has approved a joint 2030 defence program, which among other things includes the rise in military spendings and a general focus on providing security to the Union
Even as the talks about a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine spread, the Baltics and Poland remain cautious. The countries are in fear of being targeted by Russia next even if the ceasefire or a peace treaty with Ukraine is signed. Considering all the concerns, it is clear why certain European countries would feel the need to strengthen their defence. However, the decision to specifically use landmines does not always come across as the most obvious one. The Baltic States and Poland justify their decision by stating that their intelligence agencies report mass use of infantry in the Russia-Ukraine war,which prompts the mining of vast territories close to the border.
However, war analysts reporting on the ongoing war in Ukraine underline that we are witnessing a new type of warfare. The primary weapons from both sides are drones which are deployed remotely. This new development in contemporary warfare makes it even harder to justify the use of landmines considering that a significant portion of military operations take place in the sky via remote-controlled instruments.
The Baltic States and Poland note that despite the move to leave the Treaty, they will still adhere to international humanitarian law and contribute to “the protection of civilians during armed conflict” (Ministry of National Defence Republic of Poland, 2025). Whether the countries end up producing and using anti-personnel landmines to defend their borders remains to be seen but we can already predict the negative effect that this decision will have on human rights.
Human Rights Implications
The first and most obvious human right that the use of landmines violates is the right to life (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3). It is often argued that landmines have caused more deaths than chemical and nuclear weapons combined. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the majority of people who are harmed by anti-personnel mines are civilians, many of whom are children. Moreover, many people receive serious life-long injuries as a result of mine detonation, which interferes with their right to health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25).
Another issue is the fact that landmines render large swaths of land unusable. After the land is mined, it becomes impossible to use it for years after the conflict. Those areas cannot be used for public good, they cannot be sold as private property, and cannot be used for food production.The clearance campaigns are expensive, dangerous and time-consuming to undertake. It can take years and even decades to declare the area safe again.
Before the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, it was estimated that “there are about 80-120 million landmines spread around 90 countries” (Berhe 2007). Although the countries predominantly affected by this issue are situated in Africa and the Middle East, some European countries are also affected. For example, it is estimated that for each citizen of Bosnia, there is one landmine buried in the country’s ground (Berhe 2007).
Moreover, the environmental impact of landmines is also an important downside to their usage. Remaining hidden underground for many years, landmines contaminate soil and water. Berhe (2007) argues that landmines are “one of the most environmentally destructive aftermaths of war facing the world today”. Their complex environmental effects cause land degradation which includes loss of biodiversity, chemical contamination and reduced productivity among other effects (Berhe 2007).
Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemn the use of anti-personnel landmines and the plans to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty. However, the critique does not always stop at the countries that decide to reinstate the use of landmines. The two global actors that play a major role in the rise of European concerns over defence are the US and Russia. Their influence on the state of international affairs—from Russia’s war in Ukraine to the US’ reduced support for Europe—is hard to dispute. The US has recently come under even more scrutiny due to Donald Trump’s cuts of foreign aid, which is bound to influence international demining programs as well.
Additionally, there are concerns about the future of international law and other international treaties that protect fundamental human rights. Demonstrating the weakness of international institutions in times of instability may not be the most far-sighted decision but it is the one that the countries sometimes feel they have to make. Decisions to leave major and important treaties lead to norm-erosion in the sphere of international law, which can have diverse negative consequences in the future. If it becomes easy to withdraw from commitments that conflict with a country’s military program, it is natural to assume that agreements banning the use of chemical and nuclear weapons could be next.
Conclusion
It remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the Baltic States and Poland will use their newly gained freedom from the Ottawa Treaty. While it is reasonable for European countries to be concerned about their security, it is still important to carefully assess all the possible outcomes of using certain types of military equipment. This is especially true for anti-personnel landmines, as after an armed conflict is over, it is the civilians who have to bear the consequences of their country’s military policies.
Bibliography
Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://disarmament.unoda.org/anti-personnel-landmines-convention/
Dom, E. (2025, March 19). Baltics and Poland announce planned withdrawal from landmine treaty. Euronews. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/19/baltics-and-poland-announce-planned-withdrawal-from-landmine-treaty
Droege, C. And Brehm, M. (2025, March 13). Anti-personnel mines: the false promise of security through exceptionalism in war. Humanitarian Law & Policy. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/03/13/anti-personnel-mines-the-false-promise-of-security-through-exceptionalism-in-war/
Franke, U. (2025, January 10). Drones in Ukraine: Four lessons for the West. European Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://ecfr.eu/article/drones-in-ukraine-four-lessons-for-the-west/
Goose, S. D. (2009, February 2009). The Ottawa Process and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. Cambridge University https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/yearbook-of-international-humanitarian-law/article/abs/ottawa-process-and-the-1997-mine-ban-treaty/AC9BD05B58E9F057DFF75CF1DD3C2671
Hinterleitner, M. And Sager, F. (2022, November 23). Political challengers and norm erosion in advanced democracies. European Journal of Political Research. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12571
Höller, L. (2005, March 21). EU leaders green-light massive European rearmament Plan. DefenseNews. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/03/21/eu-leaders-green-light-massive-european-rearmament-plan/
Luckhurst, T. (2025, March 18). Poland and Baltics to quit landmine treaty over Russia fears. BBC. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjryp19884yo
Perdue, M. (2024, November 22). An Explosive Choice: Landmines and Ukraine. CEPA. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://cepa.org/article/an-explosive-choice-landmines-and-ukraine/
Ruitenberg, R. (2025, March 19). EU’s 2030 defense plan pushes for more joint spending at home. DefenseNews. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/03/19/eus-2030-defense-plan-pushes-for-more-joint-spending-at-home/
Sandić, G. (2025 April 17). Addressing landmine pollution: how the ‘polluter pays’ principle can help. Humanitarian Law & Policy. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/04/17/addressing-landmine-pollution-how-the-polluter-pays-principle-can-help/
Sytas, A and Erling, B. (2025, March 18). Poland and Baltic nations plan to withdraw from landmine convention. Reuters. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-baltic-nations-pull-out-landmines-convention-2025-03-18/
(1948, December 10). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Wolff, G. B., Steinbach, A. and Zettelmeyer, J (2005, April 7). The governance and funding of European rearmament. Bruegel. https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/governance-and-funding-european-rearmament
Wareham, M. (2025, April 1). Backsliding on Landmines Endangers Civilian Lives: Poland, Baltic Countries Move to Leave Mine Ban Treaty. Human Rights Watch. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/01/backsliding-landmines-endangers-civilian-lives
(2025, March 13). Statement by the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Polish Ministers of Defence on Withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. Ministry of National Defence Republic of Poland. Accessed 27 April. https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/statement-by-the-estonian-latvian-lithuanian-and-polish-ministers-of-defence-on-withdrawal-from-the-ottawa-convention#:~:text=In%20light%20of%20these%20considerations,defend%20our%20territory%20and%20freedom.
(2025, April 2025). Finland: Move to leave convention banning anti-personnel mines could put civilian lives at risk. Amnesty International. Accessed 27 April 2025. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/finland-move-to-leave-convention-banning-anti-personnel-mines-could-put-civilian-lives-at-risk/
